On Mississippi Public Radio this morning, Sandra Knispel talked to Paul Quinn about the presentencing letters about Langston’s case. It’s the 2nd story down here. Knispel says: “To most the fact that Langston pleaded guilty to conspiracy to bribe an official, specifically Hinds County Judge Bobby DeLaughter, seems a small mistake compared to his many good deeds.”
She also talked to a law professor, Tom Schornhorst, who describes the impact of the government’s motion relating to Langston’s cooperation. He predicts that Langston will get a much reduced sentence, and possibly some of it in home confinement.
It will be interesting how this goes. Langston’s plea agreement (which we posted about here and which can be read here) is binding because the court accepted it, and caps the sentence at 36 months. The question is how this all falls out. Obviously, with a $3M bribe and who-knows-much-at-stake in the lawsuit down in Jackson, this thing guidelines out way higher than the agreed-upon 36 months, so other than the judge being able to say to Langston, “You’ve already got a really great deal here” (and see the last part in this post for some notes on just how remarkable), the guidelines aren’t relevant.
Cooperation or not, I would assume that the prosecutor would expect to see serious punishment here. I’d also expect that given the tenor of the motion the prosecutor filed, their position seems to be “we gave him a deal, but his cooperation is even better than we expected when we gave the deal.” So does that mean less than the 36 months? I’m guessing so. The question is how much less.
Personally, I think he’ll serve time. There are a lot of reasons I think so. First, I think the gravity of the offense demands it. Second, I think as a practical matter, there is the fact that his cooperation is continuing. The court can sentence him, and then, after the cooperation is done, entertain a motion to reduce the sentence (as Judge Biggers did with Sean Carothers). If I were Tony Farese, I would see the present posture of the case as an opportunity to reasonably see the court asked twice for benefit for the cooperation– now, and then again after it’s done.
So I’m guesing time, less 36 months, but substantially more than 12 and even probably more than 18. But I’m just guessing.
One remarkable part of the plea agreement: “The United States agrees not to charge the defendant with any other offenses, related or unrelated, as of the date of this Agreement.” Whatever Langston has been up to the United States (that’s the whole government) can’t pursue him over it. Compare this to what Patterson got: “This agreement does not bind any prosecuting authority of any state or any other federal district, nor does it bind the Attorney General of the United States with regard to any other matter, criminal or civil, involving federal tax laws.” (That’s far more usual language).
I’m curious. Patterson’s plea agreement says that it does not bind any “state.” Are we therefore to infer from the absence of such language in Langston’s deal that it also insulates him from state prosecution? Can the United States give you a free pass for violation of state criminal law?
While on this topic have there been, will there be, any state prosecutions? Seems like a conviction would be pretty easily accomplished in light of the guilty pleas on file, or are such dual prosecutions only engaged in when a criminal somehow escapes conviction the first time round?
Meanderline: No. No. I somewhat doubt it. Dual prosecutions are not usual.
NMC, this case is not usual.
Gearhart, state and federal prosecutors almost view themselves as having an informal arrangement of not interfering with each other’s prosecutions unless they both think it would advance their interests. I’ve seen drug cases where they used the threat of a parallel federal prosecution to double up on a defendant to force a deal. But other than that, it’s more unusual than this case is unusual– I think the state prosecutors will justify standing aside because going after the prosecution’s star witness (or those who are defendants elsewhere) would risk getting in the federal prosecutor’s way.
In honest moments, a state prosecutor will note that they have plenty to do without going after cases that are already being handled by federal prosecutors with more resources. It’s a combination of that practicality and the considerations noted in the first paragraph. So perhaps I should have said very unusual.
I’m obviously ready to be corrected by counterexample or the like, but that’s my guestimation.
Didn’t Michael Vick face state charges after the feds got done with him?
Yes, or Frank Melton, for example.
With Hood as AG a state prosecution is doubtful. He has, and will, defer to the Feds.
i agree w/ NMC…what i generally have seen…is that most feds and most state prosecutors are plenty busy..however in some drug cases i have seen a tag team both in state and fed court..usually a gun charge in fed ct to coincide w/drug charge in state…but that is where they are after someone..or that someone has ticked them off completely
Actually, in 1954, the Supreme Court ruled that the 5th Amendment required the federal government and states to respect each others’ grants of immunity.
While Joey Langston’s plea agreement does not spell out the word “immunity,” I believe that’s exactly what’s at play here.
Also, despite the absence of express language, for the State to prosecute Patterson it would have to be able to demonstrate that the evidence used to prosecute him was derived independently of any information he provided to federal authorities. Thus, when you start to sing, sing . . . and sing . . . and sing.
Take a look at Adams v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 179 (1954) and 18 U.S.C. 6002 and come to your own conclusions.
This is a gross oversimplification of a complex issue involving cooperative federalism, so please don’t beat me up for my short and woefully inadequate analysis.
Crispen, that only prohibits the use of stuff obtained by cooperation, doesn’t it? I guess given the practical fact that all of the information is now in one big pot over at the US Atty office and thus has an unremovable taint, a prosecution would be hard to engineer. But I don’t think it even gets to that– my experience is that even in cases where the defendant is not cooperating, there’s not much interest in dual (dueling?) prosecutions.
NMC, check yo’ email.
Here is a nugget of information. I have just confirmed that Travis Childers will be picking the next United States Attorney for the Northern District. Seems like he has convinced everyone that he should pick it, because he represents the majority of the population and Bennie agreed with the logic. So, why is Joey rushing to get sentenced again?
NMC @ 9: Another angle on dual prosecutions … States frequently impose lighter sentences than the feds, particularly for offenses involving guns and drugs (that oughta be all one word). In some of those cases the feds will prosecute just to keep the perps locked away longer. Conversely, states frequently let the feds prosecute embezzlers and other white collar defendants because the feds have “better” prison facilities for these non-violent offenders.
Hot Rod, it’s pretty common for congressmen in states with no in-party senators to claim senatorial privileges, but less common for them to amount to them to get a lot more than “well, we’ll listen to you.”